[Newsbot]

Title: �Tax break' conceals low benefit
Category: Political
Posted By: hurley_108
Date: 2011-03-28 21:21:32
Canadian

[hurley_108]

Wow. At first I just chalked this up to wanting to make a big sounding promise that he won't actually have to pay out on, or more cynically tax breaks for corporations now, families later. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

[andyt]

Seems obvious.

[martin14]

Yeah, benefits for married parents and one staying at home to raise kids is just evil.


Such a family situation should be outlawed.

[KorbenDeck]

martin14 martin14:

Yeah, benefits for married parents and one staying at home to raise kids is just evil.


Such a family situation should be outlawed.

I disagree, why should a person be forced to work when their spouse makes enough money to support them both and their children? Believe it or not there are many people who would prefer if they could stay at home and raise their children if their spouse made enough money to support them.

I think being forced to live in a society where all cost for living are based on there being two income earners is evil. Not just two people making 50 grand a year each but we have reached a point where both people need to be making over six figures a year.

[ShepherdsDog]

having the big screen HDTV, PS3, new car every five years, kids in umpteen different activities and holidays in the tropics all require that families require two incomes.

Once upon a time middle class families had one TV, one car, the kids played outside and did cubs/scouts and played recreational sports. The holiday was usually a couple weeks at the lake camping. All easily afforded on one income. Mind you taxes were a smaller percentage of your personal income.

[Brenda]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

martin14 martin14:

Yeah, benefits for married parents and one staying at home to raise kids is just evil.


Such a family situation should be outlawed.

I disagree, why should a person be forced to work when their spouse makes enough money to support them both and their children? Believe it or not there are many people who would prefer if they could stay at home and raise their children if their spouse made enough money to support them.

I think being forced to live in a society where all cost for living are based on there being two income earners is evil. Not just two people making 50 grand a year each but we have reached a point where both people need to be making over six figures a year.

I'm pretty sure Martin was being sarcastic...

[dino_bobba_renno]

I’m all for income splitting, in fact I pretty happy something is finally being done about it. Not all families fit into that “2 people making $50 grand a year” mould. With my family both of us having a job just isn’t an option. I work extremely long hours (80+ hours a week) and I’m out of town normally two weeks out of every month, some times more. It just wouldn’t be possible for my wife to take a job on unless we sold our kids to the Nikey factory.

The way I see it my job is a two person job and I don’t see why my wife shouldn’t be able to claim the work she does which is a lot (just don’t tell her I said that because she might want a raise ). To me the income spitting thing is more than welcome.

Unfortunately to put the condition of it not kicking in until 2015 diminishes it’s value. By that time Bob Rea, the leader of the official opposition, will be putting another non-confidence motion forward and we’ll be heading into another election long before that ever comes into effect.

[Yogi]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

having the big screen HDTV, PS3, new car every five years, kids in umpteen different activities and holidays in the tropics all require that families require two incomes.

Once upon a time middle class families had one TV, one car, the kids played outside and did cubs/scouts and played recreational sports. The holiday was usually a couple weeks at the lake camping. All easily afforded on one income. Mind you taxes were a smaller percentage of your personal income.

You nailed it Shep!
People need to focus more on their needs vs. wants!

I'm dead-set against child-care subsidies. Why should I pay anything towards direct expenses for someone elses kids??? 'We' subsidize the parents so that in turn, they then have more disposable income. I paid for, and raised my kids already. Without taxpayers paying for my kids' babysitters. Yet today, part of my income goes towards other peoples kids daycare so that Mommy & Daddy can pocket more of their income. WTF!

[Brenda]

$1:

Why should I pay anything towards direct expenses for someone elses kids???

Because they are the ones that will wipe your ass when you can't do it yourself anymore, and that will be 'subsidized' by me and my kids. It's called society.

[OnTheIce]

Yogi Yogi:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

having the big screen HDTV, PS3, new car every five years, kids in umpteen different activities and holidays in the tropics all require that families require two incomes.

Once upon a time middle class families had one TV, one car, the kids played outside and did cubs/scouts and played recreational sports. The holiday was usually a couple weeks at the lake camping. All easily afforded on one income. Mind you taxes were a smaller percentage of your personal income.

You nailed it Shep!
People need to focus more on their needs vs. wants!

I'm dead-set against child-care subsidies. Why should I pay anything towards direct expenses for someone elses kids??? 'We' subsidize the parents so that in turn, they then have more disposable income. I paid for, and raised my kids already. Without taxpayers paying for my kids' babysitters. Yet today, part of my income goes towards other peoples kids daycare so that Mommy & Daddy can pocket more of their income. WTF!

I'm dead set against paying for health care for fat people or smokers that don't quit and end up costing us millions, but unfortunately, that's how it goes.

Part of your income probably has done to childcare subsidies for a very long time, you're probably just not aware of the programs.

[Yogi]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Why should I pay anything towards direct expenses for someone elses kids???

Because they are the ones that will wipe your ass when you can't do it yourself anymore, and that will be 'subsidized' by me and my kids. It's called society.

Not even remotely the same! By the time I might 'take advantage' of such a situation I will have paid into the plan for at least 47 years!

How about parents try this method of raising their own kids.

This is how my wife & I, and 'all the other parents of the time' did it.
First, we made a concious decision to have kids. The fact that twins were how it happened was just our situation. We dealt with it!

My construction jobs were mostly daytime, Mon-Fri. My wife stayed home with the kids. I was usually home by 5. We all had supper together and then my wife went to work at her evening job while I stayed home with our kids. On week-ends, I took whatever extra work I could find. My wife stayed with the kids.
Periodically, a situation arose when we required the services of a baby-sitter. Guess what. We paid out of our OWN POCKETS!

The difference with parents 'today' is, we learned to live within our means!
We had 1 b&w tv. Until we could actually afford to buy our first color television. We had one vehicle and a bus pass,until we could actually afford to buy a second vehicle. We usually got to go out camping to a local lake in a tent for a week or so each summer, as well as the occasional week-end trip. Usually to visit family. Cuz that's all we could afford! And all the while, we put a few bucks away for a down-payment on our own home.

People NEED to learn to live within their means, not everyone elses!

[OnTheIce]

Yogi Yogi:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Why should I pay anything towards direct expenses for someone elses kids???

Because they are the ones that will wipe your ass when you can't do it yourself anymore, and that will be 'subsidized' by me and my kids. It's called society.

Not even remotely the same! By the time I might 'take advantage' of such a situation I will have paid into the plan for at least 47 years!

How about parents try this method of raising their own kids.

This is how my wife & I, and 'all the other parents of the time' did it.
First, we made a concious decision to have kids. The fact that twins were how it happened was just our situation. We dealt with it!

My construction jobs were mostly daytime, Mon-Fri. My wife stayed home with the kids. I was usually home by 5. We all had supper together and then my wife went to work at her evening job while I stayed home with our kids. On week-ends, I took whatever extra work I could find. My wife stayed with the kids.
Periodically, a situation arose when we required the services of a baby-sitter. Guess what. We paid out of our OWN POCKETS!

The difference with parents 'today' is, we learned to live within our means!
We had 1 b&w tv. Until we could actually afford to buy our first color television. We had one vehicle and a bus pass,until we could actually afford to buy a second vehicle. We usually got to go out camping to a local lake in a tent for a week or so each summer, as well as the occasional week-end trip. Usually to visit family. Cuz that's all we could afford! And all the while, we put a few bucks away for a down-payment on our own home.

People NEED to learn to live within their means, not everyone elses!

And why do you assume that parents younger than you are any different?

Sure, there are some people like the ones you describe above, but there are also those same people in your generation as well.

Further, it's not like this tax break is windfall cash....you make it seem like your propping up the entire family structure with this tax break.

Did you feel the same way when you received your "baby bonus" for your children?

[andyt]

How many of these tax exemptions do we need? As the article says, this law certainly doesn't help low income two earner families or single parents, who need it way more. As it says, just increase the child tax benefit. That helps those who need it most, and tapers off as income rises.

[hurley_108]

andyt andyt:

How many of these tax exemptions do we need? As the article says, this law certainly doesn't help low income two earner families or single parents, who need it way more. As it says, just increase the child tax benefit. That helps those who need it most, and tapers off as income rises.

Exactly, but it doesn't fit with the 1950s model of the ideal family the Conservatives hold so dear.